It doesn't, at least not on any financial statement. It's an economic loss, not an accounting loss, so usually it is calculated only when a company wants to find out about if it could have done better or if it has efficiently utilized all its resources.

Quote:

In those regards, why would Disney for example shoot Maleficent in 2012 rather than 2013 if it's been aiming to release in 2014? In contrast, for example Spider-Man 2 is shooting this summer to be released next summer (choosing that because they're both special effects films and probably have the same level of special effects in them).

Even with the convenience yield, could they still possibly lose money just from being held? Like is convenience yield a bump from the losses and there is still losses?

If the films have a convenience yield, for example, releasing them at a later date due to seasonality of earnings (such as during the holidays) will mean a much higher revenue differential that is greater than the risk-free return a given inflation-adjust interest rate for the period between the first date and the deferred release date, then it makes sense to hold on to the asset. In such a case, no, it won't lose money. Again, the convenience yield is the deciding factor here - if there are no benefits to holding on to an asset, then in purely monetary terms, there is no reason for you to do so.

Quote:

For films that a studio never releases, in any form, are these additional losses in along with what the film cost to make or is the budget of the film the max it can reach?

- I'm a writer, I can't write 'Wall Street 3,' thus why I always remained open. I don't know money. I just know the choice some studios make with certain films which causes me to question if some things might work slightly differently.

If a studio makes a film and (assuming there is no convenience yield) then never releases it, then it is a non-earning asset and either should be converted into an earning asset or be disposed of. For example, if the studio intends never to release a film for no reason, they are much better off by selling the film for whatever amount they can get.

Everyone was purely focusing on marketing. While what I was getting to are the things that only Fenrir touched upon and cleared up. Still hoping Fenrir answers those other questions.

I'm a writer. And maybe not all of Hollywood, but at least one of the studios is -- by the way -- love that imagery dude. I never knew you saw me as Simba. I am the king of Pride rock though.

I'm not a dude. And I seem to recall that Simba was young and needed quite a few lessons in humility in that story.

Again, you invalidated your point by ignoring the things people were trying to explain to you.

__________________”We live in times when hate and fear seem stronger. We rise and fall, and light from dying embers: remembrances that hope and love last longer. And love is love is love is love is love is love is love cannot be killed or swept aside."

Does this include your own reading comprehension that seems a little off?

From what I can see, there was a discussion about how the GI Joe delay affected the grosses. Which seems fair enough. It was delayed. There were reshoots. They had to advertise it twice. That cost money.

For some inexplicable reason, except for perhaps your endless need to remind everyone how major film studios are apparently holding you up over the Hollywood hills like it's the opening sequence of The Lion King, you launched into an unnecessary explanation of what a film being "shelved' means.

Except that no one needed an explaination of what that meant, and we're just going around in circles now, trying to explain things to you.

Changing the subject doesn't mean everyone is missing your point.

Thank you. I feel like UH just likes to show off too much and brag about how "in" he is while talking down to the others.

I'm not a dude. And I seem to recall that Simba was young and needed quite a few lessons in humility in that story.

NOTE: Read in a sarcastic voice, you know -- Iron Man, Spider Man, or hell... give Yoda a shot (might make it more interesting, who knows?)

All true points, and the whole Danny boy and Marty McFly thing seriously threw me for a loop. I mean, who'd a' figured?

Yeah, I'm narcissistic. I am humble though, I see everyone as standing on even grounds and all opinions as valid. I just like bragging. But hey, it's the one thing I have so don't knock it -- picked on by your peers, thrown out by your family, once you get something good who can shut up about it? I want to be a hero, but I'm not that perfect. That's also why I won't be here forever. I can't be. I'd unmask and everything - and that wouldn't be a pretty sight. Just don't want to become the Apex Predator... going from really broken to getting a whirlwind of power to turn into a power hungry monster. Now that I'd hate.

I think I'm about the same age Simba is when Nala comes back actually now that I think of it. Your name isn't Nala is it? Just kidding.

__________________"If we are all united, we can take back our lives. While they stand divided, we can fight them and their laws. If we get up off our knees, we can show them that we are people. We can take back this "free" country! - Anti-Flag

All true points, and the whole Danny boy and Marty McFly thing seriously threw me for a loop. I mean, who'd a' figured?

That my screenname isn't "Danny boy" and that Back to the Future isn't just for guys? That would have been a good place to start.

Quote:

Yeah, I'm narcissistic. I am humble though,

We all stopped reading after that part.

Look, it's great that you have whatever industry job you have. It's exciting. I've been there, I have friends there. More than a few of us here are in some aspect of that too, and we all get it. But you're not helping yourself by bragging about it constantly - especially when you're not always right about the things you boast about. It happens more often than not, and your not doing yourself any favors. You can contribute to the conversation without constantly flashing a membership card.

__________________”We live in times when hate and fear seem stronger. We rise and fall, and light from dying embers: remembrances that hope and love last longer. And love is love is love is love is love is love is love cannot be killed or swept aside."

Btw, you really should read the rest -- I worked hard on those jokes however corny they may be.

__________________"If we are all united, we can take back our lives. While they stand divided, we can fight them and their laws. If we get up off our knees, we can show them that we are people. We can take back this "free" country! - Anti-Flag

You are not reading everything. Evil Twin is saying that studios have to pay money purely to hold onto the film or lose money from holding onto it alone, money that they simply can't just get back at a later period when it's released, nothing to do with the marketing campaign. What I'm saying is purely holding onto it -- they simply get the money back later, and that they don't have to pay to hold onto it. I have never seen this to be the case and it seems like something simply made up -- as I'll refer to it now as "a holding fee" -- so I'll I'm saying is to provide ample evidence that there is a "holding fee" whether from experience or from a journal.

Let me guess, you're on the creative side of the business and never took an economics class.

If a movie was financed by borrowing, like most major productions, interest is being racked up by a delay in revenue. As it is for any loan. If you paid cash, because you're filthy rich and didn't want to leverage your investment at all, then you're bypassing interest your money could be collecting because a film sitting on a shelf doesn't pay interest. That's the same as putting money under your mattress instead of in a bank. That's money out of your pocket either way. But, I suspect that Joe was financed through some production loan.

That's economics 101.

A movie sitting on a shelf for an extended period of time costs the parent company money in one way or the other, either literally through interest or through opportunity cost. The sooner you can get a return of revenue on an investment, generally the better.

Look up the time value of money and inflation and tell me again that $130 million in 2013 dollars is worth the same as $130 million in 2012 dollars. No economist will tell you that. That's the basic economic argument. You're trying to look at it in terms of pure accounting, while I'm saying there's some basic economics for why films aren't routinely delayed 9 months at the last minute. And why the concept of interest exists.

There's a reason that the norm is to finish a movie and then to release it shortly thereafter. Again, time value of money is an important, and fundamental, economic argument and you're arguing against fundamental economic principles.

Now, Joe may have ended up doing better internationally because of the 3D conversion. That's the reason that the delay may be justified, but there's a reason that the original plan was to shoot it in 2011, do post-production in 2012, and get it out in theaters in Summer 2012. And the studio and Hasbro took on economic costs because of that delay. Perhaps not costs where you see someone write out a check, but costs all the same.

Interest and inflation are two factors that work against delaying a film, regardless of the financing. Paramount wasted a lot of resources planning a release in 2012 and then scuttling it that could have been put to other, more productive uses. Not merely a second marketing campaign, but they could have been working on a film that would actually have been released on time.

Heck, one of the reasons that Star Wars is full speed ahead is that Disney spent $4 billion and needs to get a return on their investment sooner, rather than later.

Btw, you really should read the rest -- I worked hard on those jokes however corny they may be.

See what you're doing here now? This is where it turns into trolling. I suggest that you find better ways to communicate.

__________________”We live in times when hate and fear seem stronger. We rise and fall, and light from dying embers: remembrances that hope and love last longer. And love is love is love is love is love is love is love cannot be killed or swept aside."

UH is the type of guy who thinks just because he's in the mailroom of a production company he believes knows the business now and thinks he's entitled to talk to down to others when in truth he actually knows nothing about film business.

Actually I'm not in the mail room, a lot higher than mail room, and some on here actually know where I am.

I don't know how to not bring it up, reason for leaving most likely at the end of this year.

ADDING: Deleting this final paragraph because those who needed to see it have seen it, it cuts too deep but explains why someone like me can never have an ego. The other random statements -- I've stopped caring if people freak out, it's not to gain a reaction, if I stated I was a plumber no one would react, and I view it just as though I am a "plumber" that's how common place it has become to me.

__________________"If we are all united, we can take back our lives. While they stand divided, we can fight them and their laws. If we get up off our knees, we can show them that we are people. We can take back this "free" country! - Anti-Flag

1. Oz The Great and Powerful $454,4 million
2. The Croods $333,4 million
3. A Good Day to Die Hard $299,7 million
4. G.I. Joe: Retaliation $232,9 million
5. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters $219,3 million
6. Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons $207,9 million
7. Lost in Thailand $202,6 million
8. Jack the Giant Slayer $179,3 million
9. Chinese Zodiac $165,4 million
10. Identity Thief $157,1 million

Actually I'm not in the mail room, a lot higher than mail room, and some on here actually know where I am.

I don't know how to not bring it up, reason for leaving most likely at the end of this year.

ADDING: Deleting this final paragraph because those who needed to see it have seen it, it cuts too deep but explains why someone like me can never have an ego. The other random statements -- I've stopped caring if people freak out, it's not to gain a reaction, if I stated I was a plumber no one would react, and I view it just as though I am a "plumber" that's how common place it has become to me.

Dang, you planning on being a part of the editing team...you edited the hell out of this post....lmao

__________________

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. ~Martin Luther King Jr.~

As said, posted a couple of really personal things I shouldn't have so I edited it out. I am used to editing though. I can say that editing is the one thing I absolutely hate though, but it's part of it. So, I'm used to it.

__________________"If we are all united, we can take back our lives. While they stand divided, we can fight them and their laws. If we get up off our knees, we can show them that we are people. We can take back this "free" country! - Anti-Flag

The sci-fi film is heading for a $60 million weekend as it debuts in 52 territories abroad.

While Tom Cruise's sci-fi film Oblivion doesn’t open until Friday, April 19, in the United States, it has just launched successfully in overseas markets.

Distributor Universal reports it captured $13.1 million Friday, has collected $23.1 million to date and is on target for an opening weekend of $60.5 million.

That will make the film, directed by Joseph Kosinski and produced by Kosinksi, Peter Chernin and Dylan Clark on a budget of $120 million, the top film in the international marketplace this weekend as it bows in 52 territories.Oblivion opened at number one in 48 of those territories, including Russia, where it took in $1.5 million, the biggest opening day of the year for a non-3D release. After two days, the movie’s Russian box office total is $3.2 million, marking Cruise’s biggest opening in Russia ever.
In the U.K. and Ireland, Oblivion opened at number one with a $1.6 million from 520 dates, which is the widest release for a Cruise movie in that market. The opening day gross is on par with the Mission Impossible films and is 41 percent higher than Tron: Legacy, Kosinski’s last feature, and 34 percent higher than Cruise’s last movie Jack Reacher.Oblivion also ranked number one in Spain with $771,000 and France with $560,000. In South East Asia, it had its best showing in Korea, grossing $1.3 million in two days. And in Latin America, it saw its best opening in Mexico, where it picked up $650,000.
By way of comparison, the studio reported, Oblivion’s opening was 22 percent above that of Tron: Legacy in the comparable territories, 70 percent ahead of Jack Reacher and just 7 percent below the recent Oz The Great and Powerful.Oblivion opens in the U.S. and Canada and seven more international territories next weekend.